AmberSoler
Auto-translated
Your approach is dogmatic. Mine is based on balance... We simply have different approaches. You stubbornly focus on the difference in results, while I want to encourage those who took second, third, or fourth place in the tournament... A silver medal in a championship doesn't represent a specific result; it signifies second place. And that's what matters. No one remembers the seconds, centimeters, or kilograms. Everyone knows who the second-place winner of the championship is. And that's important.
I suggest we end our conversation. It's pointless. And as I see it, you have no concept of compromise. Because not everything can be determined by mathematics. There's also psychology, ethics, and human relationships. And even in the most rigorous sport, all of this exists. You deny it. But people are not robots.
My approach doesn't rely solely on dry statistics. The goal is to create motivation. Because ranking is ultimately secondary. If it lacks variability, if it's not flexible, it's not interesting. Moreover, all the aspects that make it up are purely game-related. I don't bring anything in from the outside. I simply consider ALL the factors that should be taken into account. Namely: the actual outcome, the place taken, the number and strength of opponents. All of this equally shapes the player's assessment of their achievement. But with you, it's just a series of duels with the leader, and everything else doesn't matter.
These are simply completely different approaches. There's no point in comparing them. And let's leave it at that...
I suggest we end our conversation. It's pointless. And as I see it, you have no concept of compromise. Because not everything can be determined by mathematics. There's also psychology, ethics, and human relationships. And even in the most rigorous sport, all of this exists. You deny it. But people are not robots.
My approach doesn't rely solely on dry statistics. The goal is to create motivation. Because ranking is ultimately secondary. If it lacks variability, if it's not flexible, it's not interesting. Moreover, all the aspects that make it up are purely game-related. I don't bring anything in from the outside. I simply consider ALL the factors that should be taken into account. Namely: the actual outcome, the place taken, the number and strength of opponents. All of this equally shapes the player's assessment of their achievement. But with you, it's just a series of duels with the leader, and everything else doesn't matter.
These are simply completely different approaches. There's no point in comparing them. And let's leave it at that...
